|
|
|
|
|
|
by facetube
2960 days ago
|
|
|
Here comes the "everyone is always a fully-informed consumer" trope. Practically a religion at this point. How do you think Ford communicated with pre-sale consumers re: their product's inadequately reinforced rear end, insufficient crumple zone, "essentially ornamental" rear bumper, and increased risk of death secondary to fire or combustion? Under your scheme, how do consumers who wish to avoid death by fire learn of these defects? What economic interest does Ford have to disclose the problem if the deaths are cheaper than fixing it? "In the [Pinto] memo, Ford estimated the cost of fuel system modifications to reduce fire risks in rollover events to be $11 per car across 12.5 million cars and light trucks (all manufacturers), for a total of $137 million. The design changes were estimated to save 180 burn deaths and 180 serious injuries per year, a cost to society of $49.5 million." |
|
|
If people read the news, some nonzero amount equal to the amount of lost Pinto sales. If the competition has been crash-tested and the Pinto isn't, then Ford was already continually losing money by losing the "non-cheapskate" market segment.
> Under your scheme, how do consumers who wish to avoid death by fire learn of these defects?
Read the news, be mechanical engineers, prefer products that have been given favorable ratings by independent crash-test firms, or start an independent crash-test firm.
(No, I have no idea whether crash-testing was already a thing when the Pinto came out. Regardless, such things are, generally-speaking, how one solves these information problems.)